284 Mtscel/aiieous. 



MISCELLANEOUS. 



The Echinoid Name Cidaris and its Modern Application, 

 By F. A. Bathek, British Museum (Nat. Hist.). 



EoE 'many years past the writers on Echinoidea have been at 

 loggerheads over the meaning to be attached to the name Cidaris, 

 and, as was pointed out to them in the Introduction to the ' Zoolo- 

 gical Eecord ' for 1903 (Section " Echinoderma "), the confusion 

 seemed likely to continue until they decided "who, under the rules 

 of nomenclature, was its author, or which species was the genotype." 

 At last a few have ventured on this attempt ; but the conflict of 

 opinion continues. It would be safer to remain a spectator, but 

 having now occasion to discuss some genera of Cidaridse, I have 

 been forced to choose a side in the quarrel. This choice has been 

 determined by the elaborate and carefully considered rules recently 

 issued by the Nomenclature Committee of the International 

 Congress of Zoologists — rules by which every zoologist should feel 

 bound, whatever his private views or previous practice. As an 

 example of their application to an old and common genus, the 

 present enquiry may have more than a special interest. 



How does the case stand ? Taking only leading writers during 

 the present centurj-, we find J. Lambert * saying " Cidaris, dont le 

 type est le G. matiri Schynwoet, 1711 "j T. Mortensen f says 

 " Cidaris Klein (emend.)," and, from page 19, it appears that he 

 regards Echinus cidaris Linn, as genotype, and believes that 

 Love'n showed this to be identical with C. haculosa Lamarck; 

 L. Doederlein J has changed his view once since 1900, and his 

 latest statement is " Cidaris Lcske (Syn. Dorocldaris A. Agassiz), 

 Type C. papillata Leske " ; H. L. Clark § sa3'8 " Cidaris Leske. 

 Type species tribxdoides Lamarck." 



Preliminary criticism of the simplest kind shows that Mr. Lam- 

 bert's view, however logical from his peculiar standpoint, is out of 

 court. The Dutch author S. Schynvoet was entirely pre-Linnean ; 

 the name " Cidaris mauri " occurs also in the equally pre-Linnean 

 Klein II wwdier Cidaris mammillata {-^AQ), and is supposed by A. 

 Agassiz ^ to be a synonym of " PhyV acanthus imperiaUs Brandt," 

 = Cidarites imperialis Lamarck. If the last-mentioned has any 

 claim to be the genotype of Cidaris, that claim cannot be based on 

 C. mauri. 



We pass to Dr. Mortensen. It is a contradiction to ascribe 



* 1902. " Ech. foss. Barcelona, 1= partie," Mem. Soc. g6ol. France, 

 Pal., ix. fasc. 3, Mem. 24, p. 27. ^ 



t 1903. ' Ingolf ' Exped. vol. iv. Echinoid: a, pt. ],p. 28. Copenhagen. 



X 1906. " Echinoiden," Wiss. Ergeb. der deutschen Tiefsee-Exped. 

 Bd. v. Lief. 2. Jena. 



§ ]907. "The Cidaridae," Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard, li. no. 7. 



11 1734. ' Natnralis dispositio Echinodermatuni.' Gedani. 

 \ 1872. ' Revision of the Echini,' p. 175. Cambridge, Mass. 



